Jan 3-7: 5th Test: Australia v England at Sydney

[War]

Wow, do I really need to tell people what's wrong with the above and to stop it?

I think Aus need to drop Hilfy. With Harris out too it's a perfect opportunity to play a spinner, which they must do, their attack is too one paced when things aren't going well. The batting needs an overhaul too, but it won't happen. They also need to define Smith's role in the side, he's batting 2 places too high.

Can some one you please explain why AUS MUST play a spinner, with any substanstantive reason other than just baselessly stating it?.

You claim that the 4-man attack was too once paced in this test when things weren't going well. Fair criticism based on what happened. But as Tim Bresnan showed in the 2nd innings a bowler who is certainly below all the AUS quicks ability & skillwise, on a flat pitch with no seam movement - a quick can certainly become effective by getting reverse swing.

A ability all the AUS quicks have & have showed @ test level, expect Johnson. So thats a technical issue the AUS quicks have to work on.

 

[Themer]

War, people don't want to go over the same points again. Various people have told you why they believe a spinner is needed going over it again isn't going to change anything.

 

[Animator!]

Because Sydney is arguably the only pitch in Australia that holds the quality of being condusive to spin bowling. I'm sure given that England seem to have had a definite and conclusive plan for each test - as in Finn for the first test (hit the deck), although it never happened Shahzad was supposed to come into the 2nd test for his reverse swing ability and Bresnan in for the boxing day test for his stamina and consistency - that Flower, Strauss et el have probably given some consideration to playing two spinners at Sydney as a 'horse for courses' selection.

Australia might not have a world class spinner available at the drop of a hat like England has with Swann, but given the type of pitch Sydney is it'd certainly be a lot more profitable to play a decent spinner ahead of quickie who's gonna be running in against all natural odds of the pitch. Especially given the form of the quicks whom are most likely to come in (Bollinger) who certainly didn't seem to exactly trouble England in the last game he played and was dropped because of that lack of effectiveness.

Having said all this, if the Australians do play a spinner and it's Beer and he fails I'd put that more down to the fact they'd have selected a player who is almost literally unproven, holds no experience and seemingly hasn't done anything of note in the few chances he has had.

 

[War]

Because Sydney is arguably the only pitch in Australia that holds the quality of being condusive to spin bowling. I'm sure given that England seem to have had a definite and conclusive plan for each test - as in Finn for the first test (hit the deck), although it never happened Shahzad was supposed to come into the 2nd test for his reverse swing ability and Bresnan in for the boxing day test for his stamina and consistency - that Flower, Strauss et el have probably given some consideration to playing two spinners at Sydney as a 'horse for courses' selection.

Australia might not have a world class spinner available at the drop of a hat like England has with Swann, but given the type of pitch Sydney is it'd certainly be a lot more profitable to play a decent spinner ahead of quickie who's gonna be running in against all natural odds of the pitch. Especially given the form of the quicks whom are most likely to come in (Bollinger) who certainly didn't seem to exactly trouble England in the last game he played and was dropped because of that lack of effectiveness.

Having said all this, if the Australians do play a spinner and it's Beer and he fails I'd put that more down to the fact they'd have selected a player who is almost literally unproven, holds no experience and seemingly hasn't done anything of note in the few chances he has had.

Yes we all know SCGs history. But the SCG come the final day normally spins as much as Adelaide when Swann spun out AUS &we all so how useless Doherty was.

Also as i showed with a few domestic games @ the SCG this season. A grassy SCG has been present alot. I remember watching the live net stream of the NSW vs TAS game their just before the 1st test that ended in in 2 days or something.

If the groundsman has any sense. He should prepare another wicket like that to aid AUS bowling strenght wihich is obviously the quicks.

Plus even if the wicket is not that & becomes a normal pitch. As i said above, as Tim Bresnan showed in the MCG 2nd innings. A fast bowler can become dangeous on a flat pitch, if reverse swing is going on. A ability that all the AUS quicks have & have shown @ test level expect Johnson.

The only spinner IMO in AUS capable of potentially at least being a wicket taking threat vs ENG @ the SCG is Krejza & id support him playing instantly. But of course he wont play & knwowing that, more reason why the 4 quicks have to be retained, since any other spinner playing will be meat & drink for the ENG bats.

 

[Themer]

AUS bowling strenght wihich is obviously the quicks.

It is?

 

[War]

War, people don't want to go over the same points again. Various people have told you why they believe a spinner is needed going over it again isn't going to change anything.

Yes & all those reasons aren't supported by any facts or any sane cricket logic. So whether you or whoever wishes to repeat them again, indeed wont change anything.

 

[Animator!]

Yeah, if he does have any sense he'll absolutely prepare a quick pitch with bounce. But given he now has a week or however long the gap is to do so it's highly unlikely he'll be able too. Had he known 3/4 months ago that the Aussie's were gonna have such a pure flop with their spin bowlers and discard the only guy who's looked capable of at least doing some kind of job I'm sure he'd of been able to cultivate a pitch conducive to four quicks. However he hasn't, so I doubt it will be.

Bresnan bowled pretty well, but I don't think he was incredible or exceptional. He did exactly what he was brought in to do - create some pressure, hit an area and strangle run scoring. I think that aim, his success of it has a lot to do with the fact that the Australian batting line up, Hussey and Haddin excepted (Hussey was due a couple of failures), has no spine. Hughes still hasn't done enough to sort his technique out, or at least tuned himself to be more withdrawn with what he throws the kitchen sink at. Watson, who while doing a bloody good job of it just isn't an opening bat and would feel more at home in the middle order. Ponting in the midst of his natural decline with age and the body beginning to lack what it once was combined with a distinct lack in form and increase of pressure. Clarke who's just fallen to pieces this series, and Smith who while potentially a good prospect as an all-rounder isn't a serious test batsman yet, certainly not at number 6 and isn't anywhere near the finished article as a spinner yet. As I said I think Bresnan performed well, alot better than many will have expected but to indicate that it was just his bowling well on a flat track that got him his wickets is without really thinking through the complications of the Australians batting problems right now.

If the Australians pick a decent spinning option, either Hauritz who has at least shown he can take wickets even if he isn't exactly forfilling the job who'd want in the 2nd innings of games or Krezja who at least seems to have the missing Australian spinning quality of bowling wicket taking deliveries, and not a piss-poor option like Beer than I don't see how they would be anymore meat and drink than the the likely options of the 3 seamers have been in this series for the English batsmen.

 

[MUFC1987]

It's a bit role reversal at the moment really. We came into this series with everyone saying that our bowlers would only rout Australia on seaming, bowler friendly pitches, yet it seems that that is now the only way that Australia can bowl us out twice for a reasonable total.

Would Australia love to have Panesar in their team?

 

[Animator!]

Yes & all those reasons aren't supported by any facts or any sane cricket logic. So whether you or whoever wishes to repeat them again, indeed wont change anything.

Right. This is a list of the highest wicket takers at Sydney Cricket Ground.
http://stats.espncricinfo.com/australia/engine/records/bowling/most_wickets_career.html?class=1;id=132;type=ground

The list is comprised of 47 names - 19 of which are spinners which I'm sure is proportionally an awful lot higher than that of any other Australian test venue.

As you can see the most successful bowler of all time there is Shane Warne although I'm sure a lot of people will undo that statistic by saying that given the greatness of Warne it wouldn't need to be a spin friendly track for him to become the leader wicket taker.

So I'll focus on MacGill in the second spot. For this I'll compare him with Glenn McGrath, arguably one of the great seam bowlers in contemporary cricketing history, especially on Australian pitches.

McGrath played 12 tests at the SCG taking 50 wickets at a strike rate of 53.5 with a best of 5/48.

Meanwhile MacGill played 8 games, 4 less than McGrath, taking 53 wickets at a strike rate of 47.3 with a best of 7/50. All of those are firm, bold, factual statistics so it's obvious MacGill has a better record than McGrath - given than MacGill wasn't as comparitevly as good a spin bowler as McGrath was a seamer you can only assume that it's due to the pitch being more condusive. Especially considering MacGill was barely ever a regular figure in the Australian side unless they were touring the sub-continent or when they were playing at Sydney.

Now to dispell the comeback that given MacGill is a spinner he is likely to have bowler more overs, balls etc giving him an advantage.
In his 8 tests, MacGill bowled 2507 balls, while in his 12 tests McGrath bowled 2675 - 168 balls more than MacGill. Therefore while having an 168 ball advantage McGrath was still able to take 3 wickets less than MacGill.

Therefore I'll conclude that the only reason this is possible, given the abilities of the too comparatively compared in this paradigm you can only assume that MacGill took more wickets, in less time than McGrath not because he was a better bowler, but because he was a better bowler for the conditions available. AKA, the SCG spins, it has always spun, the next test shan't be any different, therefore it would much, much more statistical factual sense to play a spinner as they have a higher chance of succeeding.

 

[War]

Yeah, if he does have any sense he'll absolutely prepare a quick pitch with bounce. But given he now has a week or however long the gap is to do so it's highly unlikely he'll be able too. Had he known 3/4 months ago that the Aussie's were gonna have such a pure flop with their spin bowlers and discard the only guy who's looked capable of at least doing some kind of job I'm sure he'd of been able to cultivate a pitch conducive to four quicks. However he hasn't, so I doubt it will be.

Its possible he can at least preopare a greentop wicket, in which the possible overhead condtions can help the conditions. But i dont expect it to be as bouncy as Perth.

The last FC game plaued @ the SCG was the game that i saw which ended in 2 days:

New South Wales v Tasmania at Sydney, Nov 17-19, 2010 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

All the other NSW home games have been played @ some Olympic park oval since. So no reason why he cant prepare such a wicket for the upcoming test again.

Bresnan bowled pretty well, but I don't think he was incredible or exceptional. He did exactly what he was brought in to do - create some pressure, hit an area and strangle run scoring. I think that aim, his success of it has a lot to do with the fact that the Australian batting line up, Hussey and Haddin excepted (Hussey was due a couple of failures), has no spine. Hughes still hasn't done enough to sort his technique out, or at least tuned himself to be more withdrawn with what he throws the kitchen sink at. Watson, who while doing a bloody good job of it just isn't an opening bat and would feel more at home in the middle order. Ponting in the midst of his natural decline with age and the body beginning to lack what it once was combined with a distinct lack in form and increase of pressure. Clarke who's just fallen to pieces this series, and Smith who while potentially a good prospect as an all-rounder isn't a serious test batsman yet, certainly not at number 6 and isn't anywhere near the finished article as a spinner yet. As I said I think Bresnan performed well, alot better than many will have expected but to indicate that it was just his bowling well on a flat track that got him his wickets is without really thinking through the complications of the Australians batting problems right now.

Dont disagree with your assement with the AUS top 6. Expect id say Watto certainly has proven he is a test standard opener. Yea he is more suited to possibly batting in the middle & maybe in the future he may very well move down back to # 4. But he has survived the excellent new-ball spells by Anderson very often this series, which is sign of real test standard opener.

If the Australians pick a decent spinning option, either Hauritz who has at least shown he can take wickets even if he isn't exactly forfilling the job who'd want in the 2nd innings of games or Krezja who at least seems to have the missing Australian spinning quality of bowling wicket taking deliveries, and not a piss-poor option like Beer than I don't see how they would be anymore meat and drink than the the likely options of the 3 seamers have been in this series for the English batsmen.

Krejza is the man for sure.

On the AUS quicks. Do you believe their performances is a true reflection of their ability as group in this series?. I certainly dont.

Hilfenhaus lets not forget just one month ago againts a must stronger IND batting line-up on flat pitches was superb & manged to kee[p the super dangerous Sehwag in check. So his struggles to match Anderson swing bowling in this series suddenly is a quandary.

Bollinger was AUS best bowler for the last series before this series & pretty much the 2nd best fast bowler of 2010 behind Steyn. He has that injury after the 1st test in India which clearly affected his effectiveness in Adelaide test as his pace noticeably regressed as the test progressed. Surely he couldn't lose his ability overnight.

Harris has been very good.

Johnson has been himself really excusing his shocker @ Brisbane. Expensive but always a wicket taking threat.

Siddle also has been fine.

Only gripe as i mentioned before i have with the likes of Siddle, Harris, Hilfy, Watson is when the pitch was flat their sudden inability to get the ball to go reverse. An ability which they all have. They should be disgrced that Bresnan got it going & they haven't for this series. So i see that as a technical issue, rather than a ability problem.

So for me if they can iron out those problems & bowl like i know they all can bowl. I remain confident the 4 quicks is AUS best change of causing ENG bats problem to draw this series 2-2, more than a 5 man attack of 3 quicks & a dud spinner & a crocked all-rounder in Watson.

 

[ZoraxDoom]

You don't understand Animator. If the statistics, anecdotes, performances or logic support War's arguments, they aren't substantial enough.

 

[War]

It's a bit role reversal at the moment really. We came into this series with everyone saying that our bowlers would only rout Australia on seaming, bowler friendly pitches, yet it seems that that is now the only way that Australia can bowl us out twice for a reasonable total.

Would Australia love to have Panesar in their team?

No thanks. AUS version of Panesar in Doherty has already been taken to the cleaners.

 

[Adarsh]

I find the "retaining the Ashes" part quite bizarre. It's a series, at the moment Australia could still draw it, and a drawn series means both teams would be equal. Past results shouldn't count.

ENGLAND HAVE NOT WON THE SERIES ! I hate the media saying so.

 

[6ry4nj]

I think it was Athers (or Nasser) who summed it up perfectly. Smiths there because Australia's bowling attack cannot be trusted to routinely bowl out sides while their batting can't be trusted to not collapse in a heap. So they went down the bits and pieces route but Smith's not of a level to be good enough to fill the gap.

That's the problem exactly! Kudos to whoever for saying it and to you for quoting him!

Smith's a couple of bits of sticky-tape/chewing-gum that've been tried to patch a couple of holes. He's nowhere near a good enough batsman, and nowhere near a good enough spinner. So they picked him to be both?

Stop embarrassing yourselves and put a real number six batsman and a real spinner in the team! Can't be bothered researching it again for five minutes, but before the Perth game the spinner was O'Keefe (alternatives Krejza, Hauritz in that order) and the batsman was Khawaja or D Hussey.

 

[War]

Right. This is a list of the highest wicket takers at Sydney Cricket Ground.
http://stats.espncricinfo.com/australia/engine/records/bowling/most_wickets_career.html?class=1;id=132;type=ground

The list is comprised of 47 names - 19 of which are spinners which I'm sure is proportionally an awful lot higher than that of any other Australian test venue.

As you can see the most successful bowler of all time there is Shane Warne although I'm sure a lot of people will undo that statistic by saying that given the greatness of Warne it wouldn't need to be a spin friendly track for him to become the leader wicket taker.

So I'll focus on MacGill in the second spot. For this I'll compare him with Glenn McGrath, arguably one of the great seam bowlers in contemporary cricketing history, especially on Australian pitches.

McGrath played 12 tests at the SCG taking 50 wickets at a strike rate of 53.5 with a best of 5/48.

Meanwhile MacGill played 8 games, 4 less than McGrath, taking 53 wickets at a strike rate of 47.3 with a best of 7/50. All of those are firm, bold, factual statistics so it's obvious MacGill has a better record than McGrath - given than MacGill wasn't as comparitevly as good a spin bowler as McGrath was a seamer you can only assume that it's due to the pitch being more condusive. Especially considering MacGill was barely ever a regular figure in the Australian side unless they were touring the sub-continent or when they were playing at Sydney.

Now to dispell the comeback that given MacGill is a spinner he is likely to have bowler more overs, balls etc giving him an advantage.
In his 8 tests, MacGill bowled 2507 balls, while in his 12 tests McGrath bowled 2675 - 168 balls more than MacGill. Therefore while having an 168 ball advantage McGrath was still able to take 3 wickets less than MacGill.

Therefore I'll conclude that the only reason this is possible, given the abilities of the too comparatively compared in this paradigm you can only assume that MacGill took more wickets, in less time than McGrath not because he was a better bowler, but because he was a better bowler for the conditions available. AKA, the SCG spins, it has always spun, the next test shan't be any different, therefore it would much, much more statistical factual sense to play a spinner as they have a higher chance of succeeding.

As i said before. We all know this history of the SCG. But as i showed in the another post. I'm talking about this season SCG conditions where the the last FC game was seamer friendly.

Also as i always say. You dont have be a WC spinner of the Warne or Swann quality to take wickets on a traditional turner @ the SCG. You just to be of pass a test quality like Ashley Giles to be able to utilise such a turner, even if in general you aren't a world beater.

Usually since i started watching cricket in 97, most SCG test ive seen both AUS with Warne/MacGill along with other opposition teams have had test standard spinners in their teams to utilise the turning SCG surface.

But the only two in my lifetime of watching SCG tests, that opposition teams have brought joke spinners to play @ the SCG:

- Nagamootoo in 2000/01
- Dawson 2002/03

They didn't cause AUS batsmen any problem. The current crop of AUS spinner are just as useless & has was the case @ Adelaide with Doherty. Most likely if the pitch is turning, England batsmen will hit them out the attack.

----------

I find the "retaining the Ashes" part quite bizarre. It's a series, at the moment Australia could still draw it, and a drawn series means both teams would be equal. Past results shouldn't count.

ENGLAND HAVE NOT WON THE SERIES ! I hate the media saying so.

The aim of the series from AUS perespective was to prevent ENG from drawing/winning the series.

So yea although if AUS wins the final test a makes the series 2-2. The Ashes will still be with ENG, which is not what AUS would have wanted.